This blog connects to the AXEC Project which applies a superior method of economic analysis. The following comments have been posted on selected blogs as catalysts for the ongoing paradigm shift. The comments are brought together here for information. The full debates are directly accessible via the Blog-References. Scrap the lot and start again - that is what a paradigm shift is all about. Time to make economics a science.

March 8, 2017

Economics between mathiness, dyscalculia, and idiocy

Comment on Lars Syll on ‘Economics — confusing mathematical masturbation with intercourse between research and reality’

Orthodox and heterodox economists are talking much at cross purposes about the relationship between economics and mathematics: “Noah Smith — like so many other mainstream economists — obviously has the unfounded and ridiculous idea that because heterodox people like yours truly often criticize the application of mathematics in mainstream economics, we are critical of math per se.” (See intro)

The bottom line is, as always in economics, that BOTH sides are wrong. It is long known that economists are unable to tap the ‘unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics’: “Walras approached Poincaré for his approval. ... But Poincaré was devoutly committed to applied mathematics and did not fail to notice that utility is a nonmeasurable magnitude. ... He also wondered about the premises of Walras’s mathematics: It might be reasonable, as a first approximation, to regard men as completely self-interested, but the assumption of perfect foreknowledge ‘perhaps requires a certain reserve’.” (Porter)

The original methodological blunder of economists is, as Poincaré immediately noticed, to apply mathematics to NONENTITIES like utility. Worse, economists have built these nonentities right into the foundations of the whole analytical edifice. The Walrasian framework is given with this axiom set: “HC1 economic agents have preferences over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5 observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states.” (Weintraub)

The representative economist has not realized it but methodologically these premises are forever unacceptable. It should be pretty obvious that the Walrasian axiom set contains THREE nonentities: (i) constrained optimization (HC2), (ii) rational expectations (HC4), (iii) equilibrium (HC5). Every model that contains a nonentity is a priori false.

What economists do not understand since Jevons/Walras/Menger is that mathematics simply does not work with nonentities. Calculus is pointless when applied to utility and elementary arithmetic does not work when applied to determine the number of dancing angels on a pinpoint.

But elementary mathematics should be applicable, for example, for determining the fundamental macroeconomic relationships, which are very real and measurable with the accuracy of two decimal places. However, economists cannot even apply the elementary mathematics of accounting. Keynes is a case in point.

This two-liner is conceptually and logically defective because Keynes did not come to grips with profit: “His Collected Writings show that he wrestled to solve the Profit Puzzle up till the semi-final versions of his GT but in the end he gave up and discarded the draft chapter dealing with it.” (Tómasson et al.)

In other words, Keynes could not determine total monetary profit for the economy as a whole which is the pivotal magnitude of all of economics. Neither could the Post Keynesians or the Anti-Keynesians in the past 80 years.

As a political busybody, Keynes lacked a deeper understanding of mathematics but Lars Syll maintains: “With his profound knowledge of mathematics, Keynes realized the limits of its applicability to the real world — and that it was certainly not enough for a relevant social science to prove things about thought up worlds.” (See intro)

The question of the limits of the applicability of mathematics to the real world is absurd in the context of economics because economists can not even determine the total monetary profit of the business sector of a national economy which is given as the sum of profits and losses of all firms that constitute the economy. There is nothing more empirical and mathematical than total monetary profit. Yet, with the simple task of calculating it economists are already at their intellectual limit.

Heterodoxy is by no means more competent than Orthodoxy. All heterodox profit theories are provable false.#1

Economists not only lack a proper understanding of the role of mathematics in science but of science in general.#2 Lars Syll, the methodological spokesperson of Heterodoxy maintains: “As social scientists we should never equate science with mathematics and statistical calculation. All science entail human judgment, and using mathematical and statistical models don’t relieve us of that necessity. They are no substitutes for doing real science.”

What Heterodoxy overlooks is that economics is NOT a social science. All Human-Nature issues are the subject matter of other disciplines (psychology, sociology, anthropology, biology/Darwinism, political science, social philosophy, history, etcetera) and are taken in from these by way of multi-disciplinary cooperation. NOT human behavior is the subject matter of economics but the behavior of the economy. Economics is not a social science but a system science.

Economics is not only in need of a paradigm shift from false Walrasian microfoundations but also from false Keynesian macrofoundations. The whole of economics has to be put on objective (= behavior-free), consistent and measurable macrofoundations.#3 This is the precondition for the productive application of mathematics.#4

Economics is still at the stage where Bagehot found it in 1885 with orthodox folks restlessly building models out of nonentities on the one side and clueless heterodox realists on the other exchanging their idiotic arguments about mathematics and science: “It [Political Economy] is an abstract science which labours under a special hardship. Those who are conversant with its abstractions are usually without a true contact with its facts; those who are in contact with its facts have usually little sympathy with and little cognisance of its abstractions. Literary men who write about it are constantly using what a great teacher calls ‘unreal words’ — that is, they are using expressions with which they have no complete vivid picture to correspond. They are like physiologists who have never dissected; like astronomers who have never seen the stars; and, is consequence, just when they seem to be reasoning at their best, their knowledge of the facts falls short. Their primitive picture fails them, and their deduction altogether misses the mark — sometimes, indeed, goes astray so far, that those who live and move among the facts boldly say that they cannot comprehend ‘how any one can talk such nonsense.’ Yet, on the other hand, these people who live and move among the facts often, or mostly, cannot of themselves put together any precise reasonings about them.”

Economics, that is, Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, is still at the stage of vacuous and confused blather where Bagehot found it in 1885. The scientific incompetence of economists borders on idiocy.

The hybrid science

As a first approximation, one can agree on the general characteristic that the economy is a complex system.

However, with the term system one usually associates a structure with components that are non-human. In order to stress the obvious fact that humans are an essential component of the economic system the market economy should be characterized more precisely as a complex hybrid human/system entity or sys-hum.

The scientific method is straightforwardly applicable to the sys-component but not to the hum-component. While it is clear that the economy always has to be treated as an indivisible whole, for good methodological reasons the analysis has to start with the objective system-component.

In gestalt-psychological terms the economic system is the foreground, individual behavior the background. Common sense wrongly insists that the hum-component must always be in the foreground. This fallacy compares to Geo-centrism. The economic system has its own logic which is different from the behavioral logic of humans. The systemic logic is what Adam Smith called the Invisible Hand.

There are systemic laws but no behavioral laws. Systemic laws have the same methodological status as physical laws.

Neither Orthodoxy nor Heterodoxy can tell what the systemic laws of the actual monetary economy are.

Whether the outcome of the human/system-interaction is good or bad is a politcal question that lies outside of theoretical economics. Theoretical economics explains how the actual economy works - no less, no more.

First Economic Law ®

Narrative vs.Theory

Psychological, sociological or behavioral assumptionism cannot yield anything other than a gossip model of the world. Second-guessing the agents is not economic analysis.

Storytelling is the original mode of communication in the social realm — except science.

Political economics is storytelling and, by default, the natural habitat of confused confusers. Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism are social narratives and not scientifically valid representations of reality.

"The truth is, most persons, not excepting professional economists, are satisfied with very hazy notions." (Fisher)

In marked contrast, theoretical economics lives up to the standards of material and formal consistency. A scientific theory is the best mental representation of reality that is humanly possible.

Getting rid of proto-scientific rubbish

If an economist starts painting two crossing lines, you know for sure you have an idiot before you. Throw him out without further ado.

Paradigm shift

"The problem is not just to say that something might be wrong, but to replace it by something — and that is not so easy." (Feynman)

"As will become evident, there is more agreement on the defects of orthodox theory than there is on what theory is to replace it: but all agreed that the point of the criticism is to clear the ground for construction." (Nell)

"The moral of the story is simply this: it takes a new theory, and not just the destructive exposure of assumptions or the collection of new facts, to beat an old theory." (Blaug)

"The task of producing knowledge against the grain requires imagination." (Mirowski)

"A new idea is extremely difficult to think of. It takes a fantastic imagination." (Feynman)

"The scientific imagination dreams of explanations and laws." (Peirce)

"It is brilliance of imagination which makes the glory of science." (Evans)

"... we know little more now about ‘how the economy works,’ ... than we knew in 1790, after Adam Smith completed the last revision of The Wealth of Nations." (Clower)

The Starting Problem or What are your axioms?

"What are the propositions which may reasonably be received without proof? That there must be some such propositions all are agreed, since there cannot be an infinite series of proof, a chain suspended from nothing. But to determine what these propositions are, is the opus magnum of the more recondite mental philosophy."

To be replaced (1)

The core premises of Orthodoxy are uncertain and false and this fully explains the failure of the research program.

“As with any Lakatosian research program, the neo-Walrasian program is characterized by its hard core, heuristics, and protective belts. Without asserting that the following characterization is definitive, I have argued that the program is organized around the following propositions: HC1 economic agents have preferences over outcomes; HC2 agents individually optimize subject to constraints; HC3 agent choice is manifest in interrelated markets; HC4 agents have full relevant knowledge; HC5 observable outcomes are coordinated, and must be discussed with reference to equilibrium states.” (Weintraub)

This elementary syllogism is demonstrably false. The demonstration consists in the proof that Keynes could not solve the Profit Puzzle. Neither did Post-Neo-New-Keynesians.

In the most general terms, the economics paradigm shift consists in switching from the behavior-centric bottom-up approach to the structure-centric top-down approach. This is comparable to the Copernican turn from Geo-centrism to Helio-centrism.

Paradigm shift

Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism is provably false and this requires the shift to an entirely new paradigm

AXEC meme

Consensus

Economics is a science without scientists. Because they are ignorant of the elementary difference between profit and income, the present generation of economists has not made and cannot make a significant contribution to the discussion about how the actual economy works.

Every orthodox or heterodox economist can convince himself/herself that their profit theory is defective.

Because the profit theory is false the whole of conventional economic theory has to be rejected.

"What is now taught as standard economic theory will eventually disappear, no trace of it will remain in the universities or boardrooms because it simply doesn’t work: were it engineering, the bridge would collapse." (McCauley)

No scientist will ever accept Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, or Austrianism. These approaches are logically and/or empirically refuted. This is the actual methodological state-of-the-art. Walrasians, Keynesians, Marxians, or Austrians are still at the proto-scientific stage. These approaches cannot be improved, only abandoned.

Economists are a public nuisance because they have an opinion on everything but knowledge of nothing.

About me

Nopopop

This blog does not add to any popular/un- popular opinion.

This blog does not hand out advice about how to avoid taxes, to get rich on the stock market, to be successful in business, to increase the wealth of nations, to run an economy, to maximize welfare, to prevent national/global bankruptcy, to improve the institutional setup of society, to get out of national/global depression, nor about how to save humankind or any subgroup thereof.

This blog is about the true theory of the actual monetary economy.

"In order to tell the politicians and practitioners something about causes and best means, the economist needs the true theory or else he has not much more to offer than educated common sense or his personal opinion." (Stigum)

Redefining economics

Old definition, subjective-behavioral:

Economics is the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.

New definition, objective-systemic:

Economics is the science which studies how the monetary economy works.

From proto-science to science

Political economics is scientifically worthless since more than 200 years

Focus

Science is of primary interest and importance. Scientists are of secondary interest.

With regard to science, most people lose focus easily because of a natural preference for anecdotes and gossip over facts or subjectivity over objectivity.

Hence, Schumpeter once considered it necessary to remind his habitually disoriented fellow economists: “Remember: occasionally, it may be an interesting question to ask why a man says what he says; but whatever the answer, it does not tell us anything about whether what he says is true or false.”

Disclaimer

Missing Blog-Reference links: AXEC does not guarantee that their comments can at any time be recovered from where they have been posted intitially because the availability depends on the publication policy of the blog owner which is implicitly accepted on entering a debate. See also: 'Economists: Incompetent? Stupid? Corrupt?'

Texts: Parts of arbitrary length of any of the author's texts is and will be used again by the author in papers, books, websites, blogs, and other media without explicit reference. The right to make corrections or minor textual improvements on reutilization is reserved.

Caution: Do not expect a corroboration of your political view. Neither a refutation. Political economics has been scientifically worthless since Adam Smith. Politics has to be separated from economics because it is categorically different from science.The best science can do and has always done is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you have been objectively wrong or ignorant until now. Science goes beyond the naive common sense of today and becomes the sophisticated common sense of tomorrow.

Motto

The Scrap-the-lot citation in the intro is from Joan Robinson.

Outlook

To recall, while political economics is storytelling, theoretical economics adheres to scientific standards.

The first task of theoretical economics is to get the axiomatic foundations right. This is what J. S. Mill called the opus magnum. Neither Orthodoxy nor Heterodoxy came up with a reasonable solution until this day. This explains the secular stagnation of economics.

There is no serious alternative to structural axiomatic economics. This is not a matter of opinion but of proof. The sole criteria are material and formal consistency.

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.

Galileo Galilei

The Profit Law ®

The Law of Supply and Demand ®

The Employment Law ®

Time evolution of the economic system ®

The Economics God Equation embodies the open simulation of the pure production-consumption economy from t=0 to infinity

Major economic policy implication

The price mechanism does not work as standard economics hypothesizes. The axiom-based Employment Law states that overall employment increases if the average wage rate increases relative to average price and productivity. This gives one the lever to improve the employment situation all over the world and to fend off deflation without rising debt and without artificial capacity growth. To increase the average price relative to the average wage rate and productivity increases unemployment.

Right policy depends on true theory.

“In order to tell the politicians and practitioners something about causes and best means, the economist needs the true theory or else he has not much more to offer than educated common sense or his personal opinion.” (Stigum)

Lacking the true theory, economists promote since more than 200 years opinion instead of knowledge.